Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Being right in the sense of being correct is not sufficient to win. Political technology determines political success. Learn how to organize and how to communicate. Most political technology is philosophically neutral. You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The South Carolina Congressional Districts that Ben Swann talked about in the above video:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SC-districts-108.JPGFor each of the above South Carolina congressional districts that Paul won, he gets 2 delegates. It doesn't appear that he won any of them, but if his votes were all concentrated in one or two districts, then he could leave SC with a few delegates. Why wasn't this known in advance? If it was known in advance, then why weren't badass communicators on Paul's team dispersed to South Carolina, weeks ago? (Granted, I understand that a few of them remained in Iowa, and that they did great work there. I also understand that Pennsylvania is a state with tons of delegates, and tons of Ron Paul support to be snapped up, or lost.)

Right now, Ron Paul has 10 (out of a possible 62) delegates who are pledged to vote for him. Romney has between 7 and 21 (I don't know how many Romney got in SC, but they are hard delegates, it's 2 per congressional district he won). Newt has the most "hard (bonehead) delegates" right now, at 11 "hard" and a possibility of 25.

New Hampshire (usually has 24 "hard" delegates, this year demoted to 12 for breaking GOP scheduling rules): 7-Romney, 3-Paul, 2-Hunstman(go to establishment, against Paul now that Huntsman is out).

South Carolina (usually has 50 delegates, this year demoted to 25 for breaking GOP scheduling rules. Therefore all the media hooplah about "No GOP president has ever won without winning South Carolina" is nonsense. This is usually the case, because South Carolina is usually TWICE as powerful in terms of delegate count.): 11-Newt(hard), 14-undetermined by this blog, but somebody knows who they go to, since it's based on known SC congressional district results. Paul apparently didn't pick up any delegates here. Too bad. If he'd have had more resources (or they were better allocated) he could have had people on the ground in Abbeville County, and the surrounding counties, and maybe won the 2 delegates from Congressional District 3. Paul got 22% in Abbeville County, the largest percentage of any county in South Carolina.

In any State that does winner-takes-congressional-districts, it would really benefit the Paul camp to allocate a lot of resources to rural congressional districts, and give rousing pro-gun, anti-tax speeches. The gun rights issue attracts single-issue voters, more than any other issue, other than taxation, which is universally applicable. If Paul did this, he could really optimize his race based on delegate count, and stay competitive for a lot longer than he's likely to, right now. (I'm hoping for the best, but realistically, Super Tuesday in 2008 was a flood of zombies from liberal states, where conservatives wrongly thought they were being conservative by voting against individual personal freedoms.)

Based on the following map, it looks like virtually all South Carolina's delegates go to Newt Gingrich, the "Russian Roulette" candidate (you never know when a scandal caused by his egomania and sociopathy will erupt). Since Newt is (by track record) an unelectable sociopath (who pays lip service to free market ideas while self-contradictorily advocating that people get the death sentence for marijuana possession), it's anyone's call how his former delegates get divided up, in Tampa. Maybe they'll all do the sub-optimal but most honorable thing, and committ seppuku, en masse. Or, if there's a benevolent God, perhaps they'll do the optimal thing, and send their votes to Ron Paul, the only republican in the race.

Now, some people might think that my suggestion of voluntary Seppuku for pseudo-republican traitors to the USA is a little harsh, but think about it: Not only are they betraying their country, by voting in favor of social intolerance and financial servitude (and therefore against enlightenment values), they are doing so on the eve of a looming U. S. financial collapse. So, there's a real likelihood we could see the collapse of western civilization, based on their vote. Opposition to enlightenment values is basically serving Al-qaeda, or some other form of theocratic tribalism. Moreover, they are willfully ignoring the historical decay of the Weimar Republic in the pig-headed defiance of the rule of law, jury trials, and a free market.

So, an overview of the delegate situation, as it stands on January 21, 2012:

"Hard delegates" pledged = 37.Of that 37: 7-9 are for Romney.3 are for Paul.11-25 are for Newt.2 are for Huntsman.

Including the "soft delegates" (the delegates that remain unpledged until the GOP convention in Tampa), we can assume that the breakdown is between Ron Paul (republican principles) and the banking establishment (anti-republican socialist "establishment" principles). Including the soft delegates who have indicated they will vote one way or another (7 Iowa delegates indicated they were voting for Ron Paul), the picture tilts a little in Paul's favor:

7-9(+18 soft establishment) are potentially for Romney (total of 27 right now).3(+7 soft) are for Paul (total of 10 right now).11-25(+18 soft establishment) are potentially for Newt (total of 25 right now).2 are for Huntsman. (These two get added to Romney or Gingrich)

(I believe "hard delegates" can be reassigned at the convention, if their candidate does not win on the first ballot, or does not have a chance of winning on the first ballot. So, these get added to Newt or Romney's "establishment" vote totals, as "establishment" votes, unless Paul is close, in which case they go to him as "power-worship" or "favor-seeking" votes. The latter case is highly unlikely, given the desire for control that the sociopathic banking establishment has.)

So, right now, the establishment is divided against itself, Romney has approximately 27 delegates, Gingrich has approximately 25 and Paul has 10. If you count Gingrich and Romney as "the establishment," then it's 52 establishment (Romney-Gingrich) and 10 freedom (Paul) votes. Not good for individual liberty, but not a death-knell either. If Paul is knocked out of this presidential race, then I'm supporting R. J. Harris for the Libertarian Party nomination.

Ron Paul is heroic. I'm a middle aged person who would NEVER vote for any of the other mainstream false republicans. Incidentally, Ron Paul is right about getting his delegates on the ballot. If he does that, he's still a contender, because it can come down to him and Mitt "obviously unelectable" Romney, Newt "even less electable, death sentence for marijuana" Gingrich, or Rick "google santorum" Santorum. As soon as it's just 2 candidates, the other candidate will LOSE because distractions and lies don't work as well, when it's "mano e mano." Notice how Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all favor the Federal Reserve system, the drug war, some form of individual tax on labor or consumption. Materially, they favor UNACCOUNTABLE SYSTEMS OF CONTROL.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who favors clear accountability, and clear limits on government.

That said, if Paul somehow doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for and contributing to R. J. Harris at http://www.rjharris2012.com R. J. Harris is a principled Ron Paul supporter who fully understands a decentralized strategy of promoting liberty based on jury rights activism: bringing the power of freedom directly to the individual, without even winning a single election. Check out Ron Paul's "Power to the Jury" speech on youtube for more information about how this is accomplished, or visit http://www.jurorsforjustice.com or http://www.fija.org

One thing that Ron Paul could do to beat Romney and Obama would be to say that he'd consider Dr. Paul Butler (a Nationwide defender of jury nullification of law) to be his running mate. This would do several things:

1) It would force people to look up Dr. Paul Butler's website, and learn more about jury nullification of law, and how the drug war is racist. If people did this, there would be an instant debate over institutionalized racism.

2) It would make the establishment crap its pants in fear, because it would totally defeat arguments in favor of voting for Obama, if Obama did not instantly reverse course and follow through on his forgotten 2008 campaign promises on civil liberties. (Ending the CA and CO marijuana raids, etc..)

3) It would make Paul the ONLY viable contender against Obama from the Republican field. It would set Paul Butler up to whisper in Paul's ear on every issue where injustice is institutionalized, from an INSIDER's perspective. (Dr. Butler was a federal prosecutor, before he realized that moral people could not be prosecutors, having the integrity to then quit his job.)

4) It would definitively prove that Paul is not a racist, to those who won't let go of the newsletters made by infiltrators to his operation in the early 1990s.

5) It would make any criticism of Paul impossible, from those who know anything about anything, meaning, only the totally ignorant in society would be criticizing Paul. This is ALMOST the case right now, but it would increase this variable dramatically.

6) Some people have said that Jesse Ventura would be an insurance policy against assassination, because he's more radical than Paul. Well, Dr Paul Butler would be an even bigger "insurance policy" and it would be an insurance policy with a message: "No more victimless crime enforcement. No more institutionalized racism. Pardons for all victims of the unconstitutional, false-justice system. A black man who truly understands the issues black america faces today, who will do more than give lip service to issues of institutionalized racism in policing."

7) Obama would not be able to criticize one single move Paul made, from a position of legitimacy. This would set Dr. Butler free to pressure the whitehouse to do the right thing, or get booted from the whitehouse in November. That way, even if Paul lost against Obama, the changes would have already been made.

I like these strategic ideas, because they ensure a large measure of victory, no matter the outcome of the elections (primary or general). Plus, they bring in giant new growth coalitions, that penetrate into society far, far, far deeper than the Republican primary alone can possibly reach. They also set Paul up to optimize a shift to the Libertarian Party, if he so desires.

Moreover, Dr. Paul Butler brings in civil libertarian Democrats by the score, by finally reaching those millions of Democrats for whom social tolerance is more important than socialist welfare projects.

Obviously, a conversation would need to be had between Paul and Dr. Butler, but it would be an unbelievably powerful coalition, with Dr. Butler making the rounds on the media. ...And even if it resulted in lost elections, it would result in dramatically more individual freedom, because it would result in a focus on the jury nullification of law message.

Now, I know it's not likely, given Dr. Butler's past (somewhat passive) support of social welfare programs, and given the likelihood of a Paul-Judge Andrew Napolitano run, if Paul got the GOP nomination. But it's still intriguing to me, because of the instant benefit it would confer to both parties, and to the message of liberty.

Feel free to copy and repost this post. This post has no copyright, but you can give me credit if you like. I want it to travel across the internet as a meme. "Undercutting the Establishment" Thanks, --Jake Witmer.

Friday, January 13, 2012

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/activist-appeals-felony-ruling-for.htmlIf this court case is lost, then free political speech no longer exists in the USA. Watch the videos, pay close attention. If Mark Schmidter loses his case, we're all going to wake up the next day with no Bill of Rights. If you've ever wondered how the Weimar Republic caved in to nazism, it probably looked a lot like this.

Why am I so angry about this right now? In short, the TV political blather show "FOX and Friends."

Stuart Varney just made the idiotic statement on "FOX and Friends" that Wall Street isn't supporting Ron Paul because he's an "isolationist." Steve Doocy then idiotically states that "...and that's because you can't be an isolationist in a global economy." These idiots are apparently incapable of comprehending the difference between "military non-interventionism" and "isolationism."

Ron Paul supports a foreign policy that Thomas Jefferson described as: "Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." That's military noninterventionism, and historically, it prevents war and conflict. Stated another way: "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." "Isolationism" --a completely different thing-- is a backwards politicial philosophy that encourages the reduction and isolation of trade to favor "American business," as well as military and political disengagement, often with populist or nationalist overtones. Pat Buchanan is an "isolationist." F. A. Hayek, Harry Browne, and Ron Paul are "military noninterventionists." There's an immense difference, as any kindergartener of median intelligence can understand.

But I guess that Stuart Varney and Steve Doocy aren't quite that bright. ...Or, they're willing to sell out America on orders from their corporate overlords.

Sadly, the Ron Paul-supporting intellectuals in Iowa were not numerous enough to keep our grandkids out of "indefinite detention" in tomorrow's prison camps. (Let's hope there are enough people who comprehend the basic concept of America for Paul to win NH and SC.) If not, it's bye bye, America, ...fun while it lasted!

"FOX and friends" further reveals its ignorant media bias by their wording of their push poll: "Given expectations going into Iowa, the biggest loser from Tuesday night was: Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul" THEY LEFT MITT ROMNEY'S NAME OUT!

...He got fewer votes than he got in 2008, even though the Republican establishment has been supporting him from the beginning! He came 8 votes from being beaten by the ridiculous socialist and bigot, Rick Santorum (who benefitted from an enormous herd of sheeple who mindlessly listened to their pastors and to santorum's words, without bothering to check his record out)! This weak showing is amazing, when put in the context that the media establishment has been working for free for Romney for months!

Even all that money and free support couldn't take the stink out of Romney enough to give him a landslide victory! Plastic Mitt is just too transparently a tool of the Federal Reserve bankers! FOX clearly wants their unthinking low-brow conformist viewers, to view Romney as a "winner." ...Ridiculous!

Don't worry, tyrants, your strategy of bringing education under the control of government has paid off. With voters in Iowa calling themselves conservatives, and working for their own enslavement, it's apparent that depriving highschoolers of proper history, philosophy, and economics lessons has accomplished its goal: a servile American population of willing "free range" serfs. A serf owns nothing, not even his own body: as this video (and the existence of the AMA, FDA, and DEA) clearly shows. So, congratulations on doing a very thorough job. The general public is completely unaware that America had the highest standard of literacy in the world, prior to the advent of public education.

"Conservative" is now a word with completely no meaning. It is a suitcase word that means anything from the legitimate "limited government" to the illegitimate "institutionalized bigotry on behalf of a fearful majority."

Well, I need to go and watch the Fox News media fascists argue about the differences between 99% support for unlimited government, and 99% support for unlimited government allocated to slightly different subject areas. ...It's been fun.

If Iowa's Republicans don't vote for Ron Paul, they will forever be remembered as the state Republicans that eliminated all hope of returning America to the constitutional rule of law. They will go down in history as "Republicans" who could not define the term "republic."

A republic is defined by a constitution that limits the power of government, no matter what 51% of the voters decide. A republic's constitution is the sourcecode or DNA of country that determines what form its body politic will take. Even if 51% of the voters decide to eliminate jury trials, or build gas chambers for Jews, a constitutional republic does not allow them to have their way. A constitutional republic allows multiple overlapping checks on government power to say "That's too far, this government action cannot be allowed." The president or governor can pardon those who acted in violation of unconstitutional government laws. The congress can pass a law providing relief to the people, and the State legislature can pass laws that offer relief from congress's laws and the president's executive orders. Judges can soften a punishment even when the jury returns a guilty verdict. And juries can outright refuse to return guilty verdicts. Even one single juror can hang a jury, based on his individual conscience.

This is the very core of what it means to be a Republican, and the very core of what it means to be an American.

Ultimately, We, the Jury, are the final check on government power. The government's prosecutors must ask a jury for permission to enforce the law. They must get 12 people to give them the word "GUILTY."

But Republics don't always last. In Germany, in 1934, the Nazis won a decisive plurality of seats in the Reichstag. A false flag attack then rallied the German people into giving up jury trials, and freedom of speech. The German state consolidated power, and began to use state power to destroy its opponents, internally. By the time the German public woke up to this fact, to speak out was to be raided by SS storm troopers. Those nice young men in uniform who were "keeping the order" were no longer protectors, but victimizers who served a political master, not the public peace.

Before the Civil War, in our own USA, jury trials were attacked by the government, and prosecutors were allowed, for the first time ever, to question the jury for agreement with the Fugitive Slave Law. Northern abolitionists like Lysander Spooner saw through this barbaric and unconstitutional practice, and reported it to the press. Juries responded to the state's efforts to return escaped slaves to slavery by getting smarter, and lying to state prosecutors, so they would be seated, and get the chance to acquit runaway slaves and their neighbors who harbored them. After the civil war ended, this practice of allowing the prosecutor to question the jury was not repealed, and is the reason for unconstitutional laws being enforced today.

...But we still have jury trials, and those determined to send a message can still present themselves as willing to enforce unjust laws, and can still veto unconstitutional laws. ...So prosecutors must still be wary not to punish those who are too obviously innocent of wrong.

Once Germany's nazis had eliminated jury trials, the life-blood of the economy, Germany's industrialists, were no longer safe from being looted under the "color of law." There were no longer legal protections in courts of law for them, and no longer jury trials. If they wanted to survive, they had to bow and scrape, and give Germany's nazi politicians everything they wanted. They were taxed and looted into bankruptcy. Before the war was over between six and eight million Jews were murdered, but people forget that that genocide is less than half of the murdering that took place. The rest of the murdering was democide. Approximately twelve million non-Jews were also murdered, for opposing, or simply being victimized by, Hitler's unconstitutional police state. They were not murdered for their race, or "genes," they were murdered for their beliefs, speech, or political identity. What if they had taken up arms against Hitler when he had passed his "Enabling Act?"

Germans in 1933 had to choose between marxists, social democrats, and fascists. But here, in America, we have a final shot at a better alternative: A true Republican. A man who favors proper constitutional limits on government power. A small-L, philosophical libertarian in the mold of Thomas Paine.

Nearly everyone disagrees with one or another constitutional limits on government power. Nearly everyone believes that if government power were expanded in some area, it would be able to do more good, or accomplish more to benefit society in some way. It's been pounded into every American in the form of "social studies" classes, since they were children.

The same thing happened to Germany, in the 1920s. For many years, Germans had been indoctrinated by tax-financed government schools to favor unlimited taxation. This was the genesis of the decline of the German Republic. Gradually, the Weimar Republic eliminated the already weak limits on government power that it had.

In modern Germany, grandparents now need to explain to their grand kids how they either supported or opposed the nazi police state. Young, curious minds want to know how such a betrayal was possible. How would you explain to your grandkids, if they cracked a book open, years after the fall of America? Would you tell them something like this?: "I was on the wrong side. I was stupid. I didn't read about how jury trials had been eroded. I didn't think about the loss of free speech, or the NDAA's new executive-enabling powers. I just didn't understand what was going on." ...Do you think they'd forgive you their impoverished, hard-scrabble existence? Do you think they'd forgive the fact that you took the last of America's wealth, and spent it putting innocent people in prison, and bombing goat-farming foreigners into pre-industrial oblivion? Do you think they'll forgive the fact that you were willing to allow the police state to make exceptions to property rights for marijuana, guns, and gold (real money)? Do you think they'll forgive you for not ever cracking a proper economics or history book? There's some indication that Iowa is snapping out of America's socialist delusion. There's some indication that just because socialism is labeled "Republican," some of the voters are daring to ask bold questions of the candidates. There's some indication that the voters won't betray their grandparents, who marched into Germany to prevent world fascist domination by a superpower gone terribly wrong.

Let's not make America into another rogue superpower. Let's not share in the disgrace of Hitler's Germany. Germany lost their Republic, but we can keep ours. Germany allowed Hitler's enabling act, but we don't need to allow Bush and Obama their "PATRIOT Act", and "NDAA" that allows the elimination of trials by jury.

TRIALS BY JURY! That's what Obama and our congress has now put on the chopping block! Since 1215, we've had to fight to keep trial by jury! Almost 800 years of relative freedom and progress! The foundation of our civilization! Citizens must agree that their neighbor's transgression deserves government punishment! A last-ditch means of preventing government from going "off the rails" and into despotism! All of the progress of the industrial and information revolutions made possible by juries that would not punish the organizing free speech of factory migrant workers, or of modern computer and internet innovators!

All this will be lost if Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination.

Is your own individual freedom not worth showing up, and being counted as a supporter of the derided, criticized, insulted, and ridiculed?

If you feel your childrens' freedom is not worth the effort, then how about simple self interest? How about keeping the interest on your paychecks, instead of giving it all away without a fight to Federal Reserve bankers? Most of your savings have already been eaten by this monster! The purchasing power of the dollar of 1900 has fallen by 98%! Will you just idly stand by while your legacy is devoured?

Although I fully comprehend that Newt and Rick's hypocrisy regarding their support for ballot access restrictions is grotesque, and that they deserve to lose ballot access (as Ron Paul would have if libertarian activist Bob Lynch had not come through for him, and delivered last-minute ballot access to him on a silver platter) ...I'm glad they've decided to split the totalitarian vote. That will give Ron Paul a better chance to make a bigger impact in the race, and possibly even win.

I was pleased to see that Dick Clark was a trending search term, according to yahoo, today. Of course, the Dick Clark I'm referring to is neither the elderly veejay personality, nor his cryo-preserved head made famous in "Futurama," it's the libertarian mastermind Dick Clark from the Mises Institute, who is now somewhere in frozen flyover country.

I was pleased to see that google images returned an image of the Dick Clark I know and whose writings I love. ...Right next to the Futurama cartoon of the other Dick Clark's cryonically-preserved head.

I hope Dick's taking advantage of his "trend" in the search engines. He's one of the few libertarian philosophers I know who is "right about everything." (I also put Radley Balko, Marc Stevens, and Jacob Sullum into that category.)

Dick is the author of the fine book "Fighting Back." Follow the prior link to get your free copy today, and if you like it, purchase a hard copy!

About Me

I am a marketer of financial services, and I oppose the Federal Reserve System, because I oppose forced servitude (slavery). I don't want to work for the Federal Reserve. I don't want my labor to help prop up any government. As such, I've grown very hungry for a free market that does not make me the unwilling accomplice of coercion. I'm also someone who continuously seeks to move to an environment containing a greater number of options. An environment that contains more options is called a "market". The term "market" is a broad designation that contains all choices and incentives (positive and negative) to exercise those choices. There are many synonyms for "alternatives" to the market. Here are a few: statism, collectivism, coercion, bullying, tyranny, dictatorship, totalitarianism, unfreedom, "mixed economy", socialism, communism, fascism, democracy, republicanism, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, conservatism, liberalism, theft. These are all terms that are synonymous or at least aspects of the same thing.